Oh, for God's sake. No wonder people look at me like a crazy person when I say I'm a Christian. People like this twit are busy giving me a bad name.
The Bible does not teach that through yoga man can attain progressive higher levels of consciousness so that man will realize he is one with God and merge with Brahman as Hinduism teaches or that man's personality can be extinguished as a flame is extinguished as Buddhism teaches. The Bible does not mention or recognize yoga or any system where man can become one with God.
Duh.
Yoga is not a panacea, it is a system where man tries to work his way to God. Yoga is not necessary and all of man's works are nothing but dirty rags before the righteousness of God. Why spend one's life in bondage chasing a mirage, spending countless hours doing yoga exercises and meditating, hoping to pull oneself off samsara, the wheel of reincarnation?
I wonder what he thinks Jesus did for forty days and nights in the desert?
Swami Prabhavananda's Yoga and Mysticism lists brain injury, incurable disease, and insanity as potential hazards of wrong yoga practice.
Hmmm...haven't we heard this warning before about a certain other physical activity?
What kind of person would write such nonsense?
Michael Sherif practiced mantra yoga (meditated silently on a supposedly "meaningless" sound which was really the vehicle that drew him into a "Hindu" deity or really a demon from our Christian perspective). He was in bondage to this, in combination with hatha yoga for six years. According to his testimony this was a horrible experience for him. Yoga involvement is really an exercise in a demonic activity which is portrayed as "fun" and "healthy" that can lead to demonic possession. He experienced different states of sensory consciousness which were dark and sterile until Jesus set him free. You may read other articles that deal with witchcraft and New Age bondage at his website: www.earthharvest.org
Oh. Sigh.
Monday, January 31, 2005
Deep Thoughts: Follow-Up
In a recent post, I complained about President Bush's discriminatory comments about same-sex parenting.
Bush said, "Studies have shown that the ideal is where a child is raised in a married family with a man and a woman."
Today, columnist David Corn sets the record straight (uh...pardon the pun):
"When I heard this statement at the time, I scratched my head and wondered whether it was accurate. But, busy as I was with other matters, I did not follow through, as did Benedict Carey of the Times. His story is no surprise. It reports, "Experts say there is no scientific evidence that children raised by gay couples do any worse--socially, academically or emotionally--than their peers raised in more traditional households.""
Bush said, "Studies have shown that the ideal is where a child is raised in a married family with a man and a woman."
Today, columnist David Corn sets the record straight (uh...pardon the pun):
"When I heard this statement at the time, I scratched my head and wondered whether it was accurate. But, busy as I was with other matters, I did not follow through, as did Benedict Carey of the Times. His story is no surprise. It reports, "Experts say there is no scientific evidence that children raised by gay couples do any worse--socially, academically or emotionally--than their peers raised in more traditional households.""
Bravo, Iraq!
Well, the initial news coming out of Iraq about yesterday's elections is very, very inspiring and encouraging. Given the insurgency's tenacity, it seems virtually a miracle that only 44 people were killed yesterday. Those victims are the true martyrs, not the deluded murderers who commit unspeakable blasphemy in the name of God.
Here's an election scene we don't encounter here in the U.S.:
Still, I feel compelled to point out that the end -- and this is far, far, far from the end -- does not justify the means. Whatever yesterday's successes, it cannot be denied that our invasion and occupation were made on claims that turned out to be utterly false. Had we not destabilized the country and botched the occupation, Iraq's elections might have been held much sooner than they were, and much more peacefully. I firmly believe there was a nonviolent way to oust Saddam from power through diplomatic pressure.
Whatever happens with Iraq's new governmental system and its nascent constitution, members of the Bush administration must still be held accountable for the bad intelligence, bad judgment, lack of foresight and preparation, arrogance, violation of international laws and torture.
Here's an election scene we don't encounter here in the U.S.:
Still, I feel compelled to point out that the end -- and this is far, far, far from the end -- does not justify the means. Whatever yesterday's successes, it cannot be denied that our invasion and occupation were made on claims that turned out to be utterly false. Had we not destabilized the country and botched the occupation, Iraq's elections might have been held much sooner than they were, and much more peacefully. I firmly believe there was a nonviolent way to oust Saddam from power through diplomatic pressure.
Whatever happens with Iraq's new governmental system and its nascent constitution, members of the Bush administration must still be held accountable for the bad intelligence, bad judgment, lack of foresight and preparation, arrogance, violation of international laws and torture.
Sunday, January 30, 2005
Good Luck, Iraq
Well, it's election day in Iraq.
It's no secret I thought the war was not only a bad idea but a grotesque crime against reason and humanity, and even those that have found ways to justify this blunder to themselves have to concede that the execution has been dismal.
Having said that, I want to express my sincerest wishes to the people of Iraq for an election that they can accept as a true statement of their national voice, which for so long has been kept silent. I do hope with all my heart that this is a step forward. To those that risk their lives today...wow. God bless you for your courage and integrity.
I have heard a number of compelling reasons (the best from Thomas Friedman in the Times) why the election needed to be held now and not postponed; but I still believe the real reason the vote could not have been delayed was that it would have been yet another major embarrassment for George Bush.
We've been through these markers before. First we needed to capture Saddam Hussein, and that would take the gas out of the insurgency, we were told. Then it was the transfer of "sovereignty" to the current "government" last June. (Iraq's sovereignty was not ours to bestow, anyway; and besides, we gave it to a group of people picked by the occupying force. And they still have to defer to the U.S.) Now it's all about the elections.
George Bush keeps asking us to be patient. That's a funny thing from the most dangerously impatient president in history. Where was his patience when international weapons experts were scouring Iraq with unprecedented access? Where was his patience during the diplomatic process?
Given his track record, whatever happens today will be billed as a success. (God willing, maybe it will be.) But I don't think the Americans who view today's elections as an amazing leap forward in the global spread of democracy really understand what's going on over there. In many parts of the country, the candidates have had to remain anonymous for fear of their lives. You know, if you don't even know their name, how do you know what they stand for or what their vision is? They can't campaign in public, and they certainly can't debate. The polling station locations have been kept secret until the last possible minute. How would you like to vote in an election where you had to wait until the day before to find out where you needed to go, fully aware that you are literally risking your life in order to cast a vote for people you know nothing about?
The crazies like Zarqawi, who has taken to spouting comic-book character phrases about the evils of democracy, are not going to give up once the election is over. The candidates have to shed their anonymity today. The winners will be constant targets...and the losers will be, too, for having dared to participate.
Democracy is pretty impotent without security. And there is no security in Iraq.
Americans can't understand the dynamics at work there. Despite the fact that Republicans currently control the Presidency and both houses of Congress, for all intents and purposes there is a balance of power in this country. It will be a challenge, but it's possible Democrats can regain Congress in 2006; the 2008 race for the presidency is wide open. No one is saying a Democrat can't win. Even this President, who claims a "mandate," won with 51% of the vote.
The Sunnis in Iraq, who have controlled the country for the last thirty years or so, constitute about one-third of the population. In a majority-rule Democracy, they will never win. If they followed American congressional rules, they won't even have the votes for a filibuster.
That's not to say that Democracy won't work in Iraq. It can. But somehow -- and on this score we've failed utterly -- we have to convince a third of the population to voluntarily surrender to perpetual minority status, for the sake of the common good. That's going to be a very difficult argument to make.
We'll have to wait and see what the results of the election are, but it seems a safe assumption that most eligible Sunnis aren't going to vote, either out of fear or on principle. This means they'll have even less representation than they deserve. How do we get them to respect the new government as legitimate? That question has not been answered.
It's no secret I thought the war was not only a bad idea but a grotesque crime against reason and humanity, and even those that have found ways to justify this blunder to themselves have to concede that the execution has been dismal.
Having said that, I want to express my sincerest wishes to the people of Iraq for an election that they can accept as a true statement of their national voice, which for so long has been kept silent. I do hope with all my heart that this is a step forward. To those that risk their lives today...wow. God bless you for your courage and integrity.
I have heard a number of compelling reasons (the best from Thomas Friedman in the Times) why the election needed to be held now and not postponed; but I still believe the real reason the vote could not have been delayed was that it would have been yet another major embarrassment for George Bush.
We've been through these markers before. First we needed to capture Saddam Hussein, and that would take the gas out of the insurgency, we were told. Then it was the transfer of "sovereignty" to the current "government" last June. (Iraq's sovereignty was not ours to bestow, anyway; and besides, we gave it to a group of people picked by the occupying force. And they still have to defer to the U.S.) Now it's all about the elections.
George Bush keeps asking us to be patient. That's a funny thing from the most dangerously impatient president in history. Where was his patience when international weapons experts were scouring Iraq with unprecedented access? Where was his patience during the diplomatic process?
Given his track record, whatever happens today will be billed as a success. (God willing, maybe it will be.) But I don't think the Americans who view today's elections as an amazing leap forward in the global spread of democracy really understand what's going on over there. In many parts of the country, the candidates have had to remain anonymous for fear of their lives. You know, if you don't even know their name, how do you know what they stand for or what their vision is? They can't campaign in public, and they certainly can't debate. The polling station locations have been kept secret until the last possible minute. How would you like to vote in an election where you had to wait until the day before to find out where you needed to go, fully aware that you are literally risking your life in order to cast a vote for people you know nothing about?
The crazies like Zarqawi, who has taken to spouting comic-book character phrases about the evils of democracy, are not going to give up once the election is over. The candidates have to shed their anonymity today. The winners will be constant targets...and the losers will be, too, for having dared to participate.
Democracy is pretty impotent without security. And there is no security in Iraq.
Americans can't understand the dynamics at work there. Despite the fact that Republicans currently control the Presidency and both houses of Congress, for all intents and purposes there is a balance of power in this country. It will be a challenge, but it's possible Democrats can regain Congress in 2006; the 2008 race for the presidency is wide open. No one is saying a Democrat can't win. Even this President, who claims a "mandate," won with 51% of the vote.
The Sunnis in Iraq, who have controlled the country for the last thirty years or so, constitute about one-third of the population. In a majority-rule Democracy, they will never win. If they followed American congressional rules, they won't even have the votes for a filibuster.
That's not to say that Democracy won't work in Iraq. It can. But somehow -- and on this score we've failed utterly -- we have to convince a third of the population to voluntarily surrender to perpetual minority status, for the sake of the common good. That's going to be a very difficult argument to make.
We'll have to wait and see what the results of the election are, but it seems a safe assumption that most eligible Sunnis aren't going to vote, either out of fear or on principle. This means they'll have even less representation than they deserve. How do we get them to respect the new government as legitimate? That question has not been answered.
Friday, January 28, 2005
Deep Thoughts
Yesterday, President Bush sat down for 40 minutes with correspondents from The New York Times for a wide-ranging interview.
He had a few interesting things to say.
"I think two of the great ironies of history will be that there will be a Palestinian state and a democratic Iraq showing the way forward for people who desperately want to be free."
Does he know what an irony is? Did he mean to add, "despite the fact that I made a huge blunder out of Iraq where I did absolutely everything wrong and that in Palestine, where I could have played an effective role, I stayed on the sidelines"?
I'm just not accustomed to hearing people speak of accomplishing their long- and oft-stated goals as "ironies of history."
He said he was not aware of the recent controversy in Florida -- where his brother is the Governor -- over a law barring homosexuals from adopting children. Sure, he makes banning same-sex marriage in the Constitution a national priority, but he doesn't have time to pay attention to all the little related legal details.
He did add that while "children can receive love from gay couples, studies have shown that the ideal is where a child is raised in a married family with a man and a woman."
Receive "love" from gay couples? Reminds me of the time he expressed his concern that "too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country."
Some studies have shown that children raised in same-sex households don't grow up significantly different than their peers. And you know, if they do grow up messed up, it's because they live in a world full of bigots who torment them for being different.
I don't think that anyone is arguing that two biological parents in a stable, committed relationship raising their children isn't a good situation, generally speaking. But there's still no guarantee of that. Just because someone is married and heterosexual doesn't mean they aren't cruel or abusive or neglectful or unfit in some other way. The one thing you can say about same-sex couples is that they have to want children to get them; they don't get saddled with them accidentally. Isn't that worth anything?
The Times says, "He laughed when asked about his admission on Wednesday, during a news conference, that he had not read the article in the periodical Foreign Affairs written in 2000 by Condoleezza Rice, his new secretary of state, laying out his foreign policy."
"I don't know what you think the world is like, but a lot of people don't just sit around reading Foreign Affairs," he said, chuckling. "I know this is shocking to you."
No, but apparently he sits around reading studies on children in same-sex households? And, no, but generally people whose job consists of working with international policy keep abreast of what experts in the field are saying.
He could have said, "Look. I've known Condi for years. I meet with her every day, and virtually the only thing we discuss is foreign policy. I don't need to read a journal article to tell me what her views are."
But no, he made it sound like reading journals is something only out-of-touch eggheads do on rainy afternoons. When did "intellectual" become perjorative in this country?
"The president declined to talk in any detail about his plans for Social Security."
Gee, do you think that might be because a) he doesn't know enough about it to say anything without totally screwing it up or b) there aren't any details or c) all of the above?
"I can't think of any examples where I said, 'Gosh, I wish I had more power,' I felt like I had plenty to do the job."
July 30, 2001: "A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it."
"Torture is never acceptable, nor do we hand over people to countries that do torture."
Ummm...
"I'm aware of exactly the dangers inherent of the democracy movement testing the will of tyrants who were never held to account. And that's why it sometimes takes a while to erode the power and the tyranny."
Good. Then the inevitable collapse of the neocon wing of the GOP and his eventual imprisonment for fraud, treason and war crimes won't come as a surprise to him. It will be one of the great ironies of history.
He had a few interesting things to say.
"I think two of the great ironies of history will be that there will be a Palestinian state and a democratic Iraq showing the way forward for people who desperately want to be free."
Does he know what an irony is? Did he mean to add, "despite the fact that I made a huge blunder out of Iraq where I did absolutely everything wrong and that in Palestine, where I could have played an effective role, I stayed on the sidelines"?
I'm just not accustomed to hearing people speak of accomplishing their long- and oft-stated goals as "ironies of history."
He said he was not aware of the recent controversy in Florida -- where his brother is the Governor -- over a law barring homosexuals from adopting children. Sure, he makes banning same-sex marriage in the Constitution a national priority, but he doesn't have time to pay attention to all the little related legal details.
He did add that while "children can receive love from gay couples, studies have shown that the ideal is where a child is raised in a married family with a man and a woman."
Receive "love" from gay couples? Reminds me of the time he expressed his concern that "too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country."
Some studies have shown that children raised in same-sex households don't grow up significantly different than their peers. And you know, if they do grow up messed up, it's because they live in a world full of bigots who torment them for being different.
I don't think that anyone is arguing that two biological parents in a stable, committed relationship raising their children isn't a good situation, generally speaking. But there's still no guarantee of that. Just because someone is married and heterosexual doesn't mean they aren't cruel or abusive or neglectful or unfit in some other way. The one thing you can say about same-sex couples is that they have to want children to get them; they don't get saddled with them accidentally. Isn't that worth anything?
The Times says, "He laughed when asked about his admission on Wednesday, during a news conference, that he had not read the article in the periodical Foreign Affairs written in 2000 by Condoleezza Rice, his new secretary of state, laying out his foreign policy."
"I don't know what you think the world is like, but a lot of people don't just sit around reading Foreign Affairs," he said, chuckling. "I know this is shocking to you."
No, but apparently he sits around reading studies on children in same-sex households? And, no, but generally people whose job consists of working with international policy keep abreast of what experts in the field are saying.
He could have said, "Look. I've known Condi for years. I meet with her every day, and virtually the only thing we discuss is foreign policy. I don't need to read a journal article to tell me what her views are."
But no, he made it sound like reading journals is something only out-of-touch eggheads do on rainy afternoons. When did "intellectual" become perjorative in this country?
"The president declined to talk in any detail about his plans for Social Security."
Gee, do you think that might be because a) he doesn't know enough about it to say anything without totally screwing it up or b) there aren't any details or c) all of the above?
"I can't think of any examples where I said, 'Gosh, I wish I had more power,' I felt like I had plenty to do the job."
July 30, 2001: "A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it."
"Torture is never acceptable, nor do we hand over people to countries that do torture."
Ummm...
"I'm aware of exactly the dangers inherent of the democracy movement testing the will of tyrants who were never held to account. And that's why it sometimes takes a while to erode the power and the tyranny."
Good. Then the inevitable collapse of the neocon wing of the GOP and his eventual imprisonment for fraud, treason and war crimes won't come as a surprise to him. It will be one of the great ironies of history.
Thursday, January 27, 2005
Brilliant
From David Corn:
"This week Ted Kennedy called Iraq "Bush's Vietnam." That's really not fair. As the old joke goes, Bush knew how to get out of Vietnam."
"This week Ted Kennedy called Iraq "Bush's Vietnam." That's really not fair. As the old joke goes, Bush knew how to get out of Vietnam."
The Punishment for Attempted Suicide is...
the death penalty?
The D.A. in California handling the prosecution of the "deranged and suicidal" man who caused yesterday's horrifying commuter train accident said he would probably seek capital punishment in the case.
No, he's not charged with attempted suicide, of course, but for the murder of the accident victims, who presently number 11.
This man is clearly a danger to himself and others, but he's also ill. He certainly needs to be taken out of circulation, but how does killing him achieve anything? It doesn't bring the victims back and it won't deter people from insanity. Pursing capital punishment is a waste of time and money.
The D.A. in California handling the prosecution of the "deranged and suicidal" man who caused yesterday's horrifying commuter train accident said he would probably seek capital punishment in the case.
No, he's not charged with attempted suicide, of course, but for the murder of the accident victims, who presently number 11.
This man is clearly a danger to himself and others, but he's also ill. He certainly needs to be taken out of circulation, but how does killing him achieve anything? It doesn't bring the victims back and it won't deter people from insanity. Pursing capital punishment is a waste of time and money.
Subway Fire Update
From today's New York Times:
"This fire, still under police investigation, has been ruled suspicious; police and fire officials now say it was set, though not necessarily by a homeless person, which was the initial theory."
"This fire, still under police investigation, has been ruled suspicious; police and fire officials now say it was set, though not necessarily by a homeless person, which was the initial theory."
Find the Lesbians
This is the picture Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings does not want you to see:
It's a still from the PBS children's show "Postcards from Buster," in which an animated rabbit travels around the country visiting children and makes video postcards to send home about his experiences.
He's met children living in a trailer in Virginia, a Mormon family in Utah, a Native American family, and children from fundamentalist Christian and Muslim backgrounds. Recently he traveled to Vermont and met some kids who are raised by a lesbian couple. That episode was scheduled to air on February 2, until it was denounced by Secretary Spellings because "many parents would not want children exposed to a lesbian lifestyle."
Well, there it is, folks, the lesbian lifestyle. (As if all lesbians have the same life.) Sitting around a fire with your children and their friends and their families. Gosh, that's just terrible. My mind reels at the perversity of it all. It's obviously a vulgar and obscene program.
Years ago I worked at the gift shop at Lincoln Center. An elderly woman came up to me and said she was looking for a ballet video as a gift for her granddaughter, and could I recommend something? Well, I really don't know from ballet, but I said, "Here's a lovely Swan Lake from the Kirov." The woman frowned and said, "Doesn't the swan die in that? I don't think that's appropriate." Yes, I understand how seeing a ballerina lie down on a stage and stop dancing could be damaging to a young child.
People! What are you "protecting" your children from? Reality? You think you're doing them a favor by keeping them in the dark? Because someday your kids are going to grow up and leave your house and reality is going to come up and bite them right in the ass. Or it may even happen sooner than that. You're setting them up for a major emotional and spiritual crisis, and you're leaving them utterly unprepared for it. You think that's "protecting" them?
You don't have to approve of the "lesbian lifestyle" or anything else. It is absolutely your prerogative to tell your children you don't approve of this or that and why. But to pretend it doesn't exist is doing your family an incredible disservice. If you think that you can keep your children from "going gay" by leaving them in the dark, you're dumber than I thought you were.
Censorship at the federal level is also not the way to go. If simply showing a pair of lesbians on television, however incidentally, is tantamount to "promotion," then Murder, She Wrote promoted murder, M*A*S*H promoted war and every time someone says "Osama bin Laden" on tv they are promoting terrorism and radical Islam. (Hmm. That must be why Bush never mentions him.)
Also, here's a helpful hint to paranoid parents. Televisions can be turned off and channels can be changed. How's that for a radical concept, if you don't like what's on?
Is there some reason the radical right has to pursue fictional, asexual characters (Tinky Winky, SpongeBob and now Buster, who's guilty by association) in order to advance their ridiculous agenda? Could it be perhaps that they can't find any real gay people who resemble their evil stereotypes?
It's a still from the PBS children's show "Postcards from Buster," in which an animated rabbit travels around the country visiting children and makes video postcards to send home about his experiences.
He's met children living in a trailer in Virginia, a Mormon family in Utah, a Native American family, and children from fundamentalist Christian and Muslim backgrounds. Recently he traveled to Vermont and met some kids who are raised by a lesbian couple. That episode was scheduled to air on February 2, until it was denounced by Secretary Spellings because "many parents would not want children exposed to a lesbian lifestyle."
Well, there it is, folks, the lesbian lifestyle. (As if all lesbians have the same life.) Sitting around a fire with your children and their friends and their families. Gosh, that's just terrible. My mind reels at the perversity of it all. It's obviously a vulgar and obscene program.
Years ago I worked at the gift shop at Lincoln Center. An elderly woman came up to me and said she was looking for a ballet video as a gift for her granddaughter, and could I recommend something? Well, I really don't know from ballet, but I said, "Here's a lovely Swan Lake from the Kirov." The woman frowned and said, "Doesn't the swan die in that? I don't think that's appropriate." Yes, I understand how seeing a ballerina lie down on a stage and stop dancing could be damaging to a young child.
People! What are you "protecting" your children from? Reality? You think you're doing them a favor by keeping them in the dark? Because someday your kids are going to grow up and leave your house and reality is going to come up and bite them right in the ass. Or it may even happen sooner than that. You're setting them up for a major emotional and spiritual crisis, and you're leaving them utterly unprepared for it. You think that's "protecting" them?
You don't have to approve of the "lesbian lifestyle" or anything else. It is absolutely your prerogative to tell your children you don't approve of this or that and why. But to pretend it doesn't exist is doing your family an incredible disservice. If you think that you can keep your children from "going gay" by leaving them in the dark, you're dumber than I thought you were.
Censorship at the federal level is also not the way to go. If simply showing a pair of lesbians on television, however incidentally, is tantamount to "promotion," then Murder, She Wrote promoted murder, M*A*S*H promoted war and every time someone says "Osama bin Laden" on tv they are promoting terrorism and radical Islam. (Hmm. That must be why Bush never mentions him.)
Also, here's a helpful hint to paranoid parents. Televisions can be turned off and channels can be changed. How's that for a radical concept, if you don't like what's on?
Is there some reason the radical right has to pursue fictional, asexual characters (Tinky Winky, SpongeBob and now Buster, who's guilty by association) in order to advance their ridiculous agenda? Could it be perhaps that they can't find any real gay people who resemble their evil stereotypes?
Wednesday, January 26, 2005
Googlisms
I was introduced to this concept last night at a blogger talent show. Just go to www.googlism.com and enter a name and see what the internet has to say. Here's some fascinating statements about yours truly.
Andy is a big advocate of shop safety.
Andy is a gambling man. (Sorry, Dad.)
Andy is on the left.
Andy is not a pimp, but he knows one.
Andy is tearing my shower curtain liner.
Andy is the only one who knows what's going on.
Andy is in need of a loving home in California.
Andy is not pretentious, or even trendy.
Andy is going down.
Andy is for sale.
Andy is da bomb.
Andy is gay gay gay gay gay.
Andy is back vuoden 2002 liigamaalivahti anders vilnrotter aloittaa tänään yhteisharjoitukset joukkueen kanssa.
Andy is a big advocate of shop safety.
Andy is a gambling man. (Sorry, Dad.)
Andy is on the left.
Andy is not a pimp, but he knows one.
Andy is tearing my shower curtain liner.
Andy is the only one who knows what's going on.
Andy is in need of a loving home in California.
Andy is not pretentious, or even trendy.
Andy is going down.
Andy is for sale.
Andy is da bomb.
Andy is gay gay gay gay gay.
Andy is back vuoden 2002 liigamaalivahti anders vilnrotter aloittaa tänään yhteisharjoitukset joukkueen kanssa.
Mathematical Impossibility
Transit officials have revised the estimated duration of repairs to the A/C line down to "six to nine months" from their original warnings of three to five years. That is something of a relief. There was widespread incredulity and outrage that it could take as long as five years to rebuild a single room full of switches, crippling trains depended on by 580,000 riders every day.
The MTA now hopes to have the A train restored to 50% levels within a couple of weeks, and 80% sometime in April. Still, for the time being, nearly 600,000 New Yorkers must contend with what the New York Times yesterday referred to as the "mathematical impossibility of too many passengers wanting to board fewer trains than usual. "
The President of New York City Transit said it could cost $25-60 million to restore "full functionality," which could still take as long as five years. (If we can find $40 million for an inuagural party, we can find $60 million to repair and upgrade the nation's largest and most important transit system.)
The signal system on which the entire NYC subway system depends dates from 1904, based on technology developed in the 1870s. There are only two companies in the country that can manufacture the necessary components; one of these, according to the Times, is in financially shaky condition because of the limited need for such outmoded technology.
It is preposterous that they would consider spending time and money simply to restore the unacceptable, vulnerable, and century-old status quo. In the short term, it's much more expensive to re-vamp the entire system, but that has to be looked upon as a crucial investment. This is a need far more pressing than the development of the far west side of midtown or, God help us, a new stadium for the Jets and campaigning to bring the Olympics here.
The Times has also reported that the subway system experiences roughly 100 fires per month, mostly from debris coming in contact with the third rail. While the prospect of future fires being set by vagrants still poses a threat, the answer is not, as the New York Post opined yesterday, to throw all homeless people in Rikers' Island. The answer is to address the vulnerability. (If taxpayers should be asked to house homeless people in prisons, doesn't it make just as much sense to take the same taxpayer money and provide services and low-cost housing?)
Additionally, in the past decade there have been two fatal accidents resulting from failures in the system.
Imagine a coordinated terrorist plan to set fires in strategic points throughout the system; it would take very little planning, cost nothing, and have a devastating effect: utter chaos for millions for years. Clearly this is an issue of national security; ponder the effects on our economy if no one in New York City could get to work, even for a day. These points must be driven home to our officials.
President George W. Bush
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
Senator Charles Schumer
Representative Charles Rangel
Governor George Pataki
National Transportation Safety Board
Department of Homeland Security
The MTA now hopes to have the A train restored to 50% levels within a couple of weeks, and 80% sometime in April. Still, for the time being, nearly 600,000 New Yorkers must contend with what the New York Times yesterday referred to as the "mathematical impossibility of too many passengers wanting to board fewer trains than usual. "
The President of New York City Transit said it could cost $25-60 million to restore "full functionality," which could still take as long as five years. (If we can find $40 million for an inuagural party, we can find $60 million to repair and upgrade the nation's largest and most important transit system.)
The signal system on which the entire NYC subway system depends dates from 1904, based on technology developed in the 1870s. There are only two companies in the country that can manufacture the necessary components; one of these, according to the Times, is in financially shaky condition because of the limited need for such outmoded technology.
It is preposterous that they would consider spending time and money simply to restore the unacceptable, vulnerable, and century-old status quo. In the short term, it's much more expensive to re-vamp the entire system, but that has to be looked upon as a crucial investment. This is a need far more pressing than the development of the far west side of midtown or, God help us, a new stadium for the Jets and campaigning to bring the Olympics here.
The Times has also reported that the subway system experiences roughly 100 fires per month, mostly from debris coming in contact with the third rail. While the prospect of future fires being set by vagrants still poses a threat, the answer is not, as the New York Post opined yesterday, to throw all homeless people in Rikers' Island. The answer is to address the vulnerability. (If taxpayers should be asked to house homeless people in prisons, doesn't it make just as much sense to take the same taxpayer money and provide services and low-cost housing?)
Additionally, in the past decade there have been two fatal accidents resulting from failures in the system.
Imagine a coordinated terrorist plan to set fires in strategic points throughout the system; it would take very little planning, cost nothing, and have a devastating effect: utter chaos for millions for years. Clearly this is an issue of national security; ponder the effects on our economy if no one in New York City could get to work, even for a day. These points must be driven home to our officials.
President George W. Bush
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
Senator Charles Schumer
Representative Charles Rangel
Governor George Pataki
National Transportation Safety Board
Department of Homeland Security
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
On This Day in Middle Earth
Gandalf casts down the Balrog, and passes away. His body lies on the peak of Zirakzigil.
Freakin' Out
Remember yesterday when I quoted The New York Times as saying service on the A train would be reduced by one-third? Today that has been revised. A train service has been reduced to one-third of normal service. The MTA announced that "there are no plans for the restoration of C service in the near future."
So for every nine trains we used to have, there will now be three. Frequency was insufficient as it was; heading downtown in the morning it was not at all uncommon to have difficulty shutting the doors by 145th Street. Going home on the evening rush, sometimes you'd encounter a train so full that there wasn't room for one more person and you'd have to wait for the next. Now that wait, which was around six minutes during rush hours, will be eighteen minutes. There won't be room for you on that one, either.
This is what I mean by "crowded." Forget about getting a seat. You will be lucky even to get on a train. People in my neighborhood really don't have an option. I am a twenty-minute walk to the nearest other line, which is also already overcrowded. Imagine spending approximately two hours of your day, every day, doing this. (That's assuming you only go one place a day.)
With the C train gone, the A train will probably have to make all local stops on weekends, as the B train does not currently run on weekends. The express took about 25 minutes to run from 59th Street/Columbus Circle to my stop at 181st Street. Along the way it stopped at 125th, 145th, 168th and 175th.
Now it will stop at 72nd, 81st, 86th, 96th, 103rd, 110th, 116th, 125th, 135th, 145th, 155th, 163rd, 168th and 175th. It probably adds 10-20 minutes to your travel time, depending on how far you're going.
It will take perhaps five years to restore service.
Did I mention there's a 9% fare increase next month and another one coming in 2006?
The fire, which was reportedly started in a tunnel by a homeless person trying to keep warm, destroyed a room containing signal equipment which told operators where the trains were. So yes, it's mess, and a big one. But I cannot understand a five-year repair estimate. A transit expert interviewed by the Times said this entire subway line was built in five years -- and that was in the 1930s!
According to the Times, daily ridership on the A/C line is 580,000, more than the population of the city of Seattle.
Therefore, I call for an immediate federal investigation and emergency funds. The president of New York City Transit said it was "impossible" to fireproof signal rooms. That's ridiculous. The current signal system dates back to 1904. It's time to modernize, and the new system can't have its crucial components located inside the subway tunnels. The nation's largest and most important mass transit system cannot be this vulnerable, especially given the current terrorist threat. What if there were a similar incident on the 1/9 line? Transportation on the entire west side of Manhattan would be paralyzed.
I think riders could reasonably be expected to deal with this kind of inconvenience for six months, possibly a year. But severely compromising the only transportation available to 580,000 Americans for up to five years is utterly unacceptable. Federal funds must immediately be made available to upgrade and modernize the system as quickly as possible. Currently the MTA wants to take five years to restore the unsatisfactory and vulnerable status quo, while raising fares and forcing customers to endure long waits and inhumane overcrowding.
So for every nine trains we used to have, there will now be three. Frequency was insufficient as it was; heading downtown in the morning it was not at all uncommon to have difficulty shutting the doors by 145th Street. Going home on the evening rush, sometimes you'd encounter a train so full that there wasn't room for one more person and you'd have to wait for the next. Now that wait, which was around six minutes during rush hours, will be eighteen minutes. There won't be room for you on that one, either.
This is what I mean by "crowded." Forget about getting a seat. You will be lucky even to get on a train. People in my neighborhood really don't have an option. I am a twenty-minute walk to the nearest other line, which is also already overcrowded. Imagine spending approximately two hours of your day, every day, doing this. (That's assuming you only go one place a day.)
With the C train gone, the A train will probably have to make all local stops on weekends, as the B train does not currently run on weekends. The express took about 25 minutes to run from 59th Street/Columbus Circle to my stop at 181st Street. Along the way it stopped at 125th, 145th, 168th and 175th.
Now it will stop at 72nd, 81st, 86th, 96th, 103rd, 110th, 116th, 125th, 135th, 145th, 155th, 163rd, 168th and 175th. It probably adds 10-20 minutes to your travel time, depending on how far you're going.
It will take perhaps five years to restore service.
Did I mention there's a 9% fare increase next month and another one coming in 2006?
The fire, which was reportedly started in a tunnel by a homeless person trying to keep warm, destroyed a room containing signal equipment which told operators where the trains were. So yes, it's mess, and a big one. But I cannot understand a five-year repair estimate. A transit expert interviewed by the Times said this entire subway line was built in five years -- and that was in the 1930s!
According to the Times, daily ridership on the A/C line is 580,000, more than the population of the city of Seattle.
Therefore, I call for an immediate federal investigation and emergency funds. The president of New York City Transit said it was "impossible" to fireproof signal rooms. That's ridiculous. The current signal system dates back to 1904. It's time to modernize, and the new system can't have its crucial components located inside the subway tunnels. The nation's largest and most important mass transit system cannot be this vulnerable, especially given the current terrorist threat. What if there were a similar incident on the 1/9 line? Transportation on the entire west side of Manhattan would be paralyzed.
I think riders could reasonably be expected to deal with this kind of inconvenience for six months, possibly a year. But severely compromising the only transportation available to 580,000 Americans for up to five years is utterly unacceptable. Federal funds must immediately be made available to upgrade and modernize the system as quickly as possible. Currently the MTA wants to take five years to restore the unsatisfactory and vulnerable status quo, while raising fares and forcing customers to endure long waits and inhumane overcrowding.
Monday, January 24, 2005
Really, Really Bad News
Today's commute was truly awful but I decided not to blog about it. It was painfully slow; the conductors weren't sure whether they were supposed to be going express or making all local stops on the A train. There was a fire over the weekend, so the C train, which typically goes local, wasn't running at all.
If you don't live in NY, you might have a hard time imagining the chaos. At rush hour, those local stations are served by two trains, the B and the C. Between 125th Street and 59th Street, those are the only options along Central Park West. Local trains arriving at Columbus Circle to connect with express trains and the Broadway local are always packed to capacity. Now imagine that service on that line has been cut in half.
So now the New York Times reports: "A subway fire that gutted an underground communications room has crippled two of New York City's busiest subway lines, the A and the C, and full service may not be restored for three to five years, officials announced today."
NOOOOOOOOOOO!
"The A train has been running at two-thirds of its normal frequency, meaning that riders face a wait of 8 to 12 minutes. Service on the C line, which normally runs from 168th Street in Washington Heights, Manhattan, to Euclid Avenue in East New York, Brooklyn, has been suspended indefinitely."
This is really bad news for folks in my neighborhood; the A train is already so full that riding it is pure torture. To think that trains will be even further apart now is devastating, especially since come February monthly tickets go up to $76 from $70. Additionally, if there's going to be no C service for a long time, then the A will have to make at least some additional local stops, and possibly all stops, which is really going to both slow down the ride and add to the passenger overload.
If you don't live in NY, you might have a hard time imagining the chaos. At rush hour, those local stations are served by two trains, the B and the C. Between 125th Street and 59th Street, those are the only options along Central Park West. Local trains arriving at Columbus Circle to connect with express trains and the Broadway local are always packed to capacity. Now imagine that service on that line has been cut in half.
So now the New York Times reports: "A subway fire that gutted an underground communications room has crippled two of New York City's busiest subway lines, the A and the C, and full service may not be restored for three to five years, officials announced today."
NOOOOOOOOOOO!
"The A train has been running at two-thirds of its normal frequency, meaning that riders face a wait of 8 to 12 minutes. Service on the C line, which normally runs from 168th Street in Washington Heights, Manhattan, to Euclid Avenue in East New York, Brooklyn, has been suspended indefinitely."
This is really bad news for folks in my neighborhood; the A train is already so full that riding it is pure torture. To think that trains will be even further apart now is devastating, especially since come February monthly tickets go up to $76 from $70. Additionally, if there's going to be no C service for a long time, then the A will have to make at least some additional local stops, and possibly all stops, which is really going to both slow down the ride and add to the passenger overload.
Could it be...Satan?
So there was a little bit of confusion, apparently, when Bush used this particular gesture, above, during his inauguration. "Many Norwegian television viewers were shocked to see President George Bush and his family apparently saluting Satan during his inauguration yesterday," wrote The Scotsman.
(Questions for the reporter: no one watched the inauaguration in Scotland? No one questioned the gesture? Everyone there is a UT fan? Were you on vacation in Oslo?)
Anyway, we all know that to thousands of Texans it represents a Texas Longhorn, the mascot of the University of Texas. However, I don't think we can escape the fact that our national leader, easily the most reviled person on the globe, uses an internationally recognized symbol for Satan as a greeting.
Is it possible that our president is, perhaps unwittingly, in the service of Darkness?
Interestingly The Scotsman also reports that "the sign also means bulls*** in American Sign Language."* (Ironic for so many reasons!) I think the press corps should adopt the gesture for all future conferences whenever the President evades a question or responds with utter nonsense.
My next question: is this person a Texan expressing solidarity, a devil-worshipper, or someone calling the President's bluff?
* The asterisks are from The Scotsman, but I know they will please my Mother.
Another photo and more commentary here.
Couldn't Say it Better Myself
Last week the New York Times printed a semi-interesting Op-Ed on the ongoing hullabaloo over creationism vs evolution and its effect on public education.
Today's paper contained letters to the editor in response, one of which I thought was particularly germane to my earlier posts:
"What evolution threatens is not faith in God but faith in a literalist reading of Genesis; the only reason fundamentalists care about this topic is that their primary faith is not in God but in scriptural inerrancy."
Today's paper contained letters to the editor in response, one of which I thought was particularly germane to my earlier posts:
"What evolution threatens is not faith in God but faith in a literalist reading of Genesis; the only reason fundamentalists care about this topic is that their primary faith is not in God but in scriptural inerrancy."
Sunday, January 23, 2005
Friday, January 21, 2005
Clarification
So I've been wondering lately just why there is such a difference in the way God is portrayed in the Old Testament and the more forgiving, compassionate messages of the New Testament.
I mean, did He have a midlife crisis or something?
But then I thought, no...I bet he sent Jesus because everyone thought He was this horrible, smitey God and He wanted to correct that impression.
For God so loved the world, John tells us, that he gave His only begotten Son.
I welcome your comments.
I mean, did He have a midlife crisis or something?
But then I thought, no...I bet he sent Jesus because everyone thought He was this horrible, smitey God and He wanted to correct that impression.
For God so loved the world, John tells us, that he gave His only begotten Son.
I welcome your comments.
Attention: Operation Tolerance is Canceled
Dear Fellow Homosexuals and Others:
This top-secret communique hereby officially announces the scrapping of the covert program formerly known as "Operation Tolerance."
It appears that the details of our plans have been discovered and published recently by the American Family Association.
Our oath of allegiance, which we carefully hid on a random webpage at Tolerance.org and contained our top-secret passwords "ignorance," "insensitivity," and "bigotry", has been revealed by Don Wildmon of the AFA.
"If you are a person who accepts the homosexual lifestyle, then you are tolerant," he explained. "If you don't, then you are a bigot who is motivated by ignorance and hate."
We are currently investigating the security breach that led to the exposure of our passwords and hidden agenda to turn America queer.
We can be grateful that our secret handshake remains confidential.
The fate of Operation SpongeBath for the Mind, our top-secret brainwashing video project utilizing disco music and underground gay-movement leaders SpongeBob SquarePants, Jimmy Neutron, Winnie the Pooh, Clifford the Big Red Dog and others is currently under discussion. At present we feel it is imperative to do all we can to ensure the distribution and success of Operation SpongeBath before the heterosexuals can counter-attack. We remember too well with sadness last year's shocking pro-heterosexual propaganda, such as that allegedly "amateur" video of Paris Hilton promoting the heterosexual lifestyle, as well as the gratuitous display of a female's breast during the straight movement's annual orgy of "masculinity" known as the Super Bowl, which also included numerous advertisements for sexual performance drugs, which as we all know are used to give closeted gay men erections to fool their clueless wives.
This directive will have no effect on the ongoing Operation Brad Pitt.
Thank you.
This top-secret communique hereby officially announces the scrapping of the covert program formerly known as "Operation Tolerance."
It appears that the details of our plans have been discovered and published recently by the American Family Association.
Our oath of allegiance, which we carefully hid on a random webpage at Tolerance.org and contained our top-secret passwords "ignorance," "insensitivity," and "bigotry", has been revealed by Don Wildmon of the AFA.
"If you are a person who accepts the homosexual lifestyle, then you are tolerant," he explained. "If you don't, then you are a bigot who is motivated by ignorance and hate."
We are currently investigating the security breach that led to the exposure of our passwords and hidden agenda to turn America queer.
We can be grateful that our secret handshake remains confidential.
The fate of Operation SpongeBath for the Mind, our top-secret brainwashing video project utilizing disco music and underground gay-movement leaders SpongeBob SquarePants, Jimmy Neutron, Winnie the Pooh, Clifford the Big Red Dog and others is currently under discussion. At present we feel it is imperative to do all we can to ensure the distribution and success of Operation SpongeBath before the heterosexuals can counter-attack. We remember too well with sadness last year's shocking pro-heterosexual propaganda, such as that allegedly "amateur" video of Paris Hilton promoting the heterosexual lifestyle, as well as the gratuitous display of a female's breast during the straight movement's annual orgy of "masculinity" known as the Super Bowl, which also included numerous advertisements for sexual performance drugs, which as we all know are used to give closeted gay men erections to fool their clueless wives.
This directive will have no effect on the ongoing Operation Brad Pitt.
Thank you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
